Do The Standards Support UDL and CRT?

If we are to be educators who implement a UDL/CRT pedagogical practice in our classrooms, we must not only be open-minded to how we can target all of our students' unique abilities and learning styles, we must also be critical of the standards we are adhering to as educators. We must be able to critically analyze these while fostering our own pedagogical philosophy because if these are the "rules" as imposed by our future school departments, we'll have to learn to operate as pedagogues with these strictures. It's a unique and challenging rhetorical situation. 

Of all the sets of standards out there, it seems to me that the Teaching Tolerance of Social Justice standards are the most in-line with UDL and CRT because it is not predicated on what/how to teach; it is based in the notion that all students are individuals, and that they must be honored because of who they are. Not only this, it enables students to critically think and analyze topics such as race and class, such as standard JU.9-12.13 outlines: "I am aware of the advantages and disadvantages I have in society because of my membership in different identity groups, and I know how this has affected my life" (Social Justice Standards 11). This standard begs students to critically analyze whatever dis/advantages they have, and what has shaped them. With this considered, they can apply this awareness to others, and in so doing challenge dominant power structures that leaves people disadvantaged. This is reflected in AC.9-12.20, which states "I will join with diverse people to plan and carry out collective action against exclusion, prejudice and discrimination, and we will be thoughtful and creative in our actions in order to achieve our goals" (11). It seems to me that these standards scaffold students from understanding social disparities to becoming activists and champions for social change. 

In terms of standards that dictate what and how to teach, I believe that NCTE standards can be read and applied with a social justice lens. These standards assert that students should read a variety of texts with a multicultural persepctive, such as Standard 1: "Students read a wide range of print and non-print texts to build an understanding of texts, of themselves, and of the cultures of the United States and the world; to acquire new information; to respond to the needs and demands of society and the workplace; and for personal fulfillment. Among these texts are fiction and nonfiction, classic and contemporary works" (NCTE). This I think speaks to a UDL/CRT approach because teachers are able to select multicultural literature, which can make lessons and texts more engaging for students. This would also mean that the teacher has more freedom in choosing texts that conform to student needs, so there are many ways to interpret this standard. This goes hand-in-hand with Standard 3, which states "Students apply a wide range of strategies to comprehend, interpret, evaluate, and appreciate texts. They draw on their prior experience, their interactions with other readers and writers, their knowledge of word meaning and of other texts, their word identification strategies, and their understanding of textual features (e.g., sound-letter correspondence, sentence structure, context, graphics) (NCTE). This speaks to the notion held in UDL that students are not empty vessels for which the teacher is supposed to pour his/her knowledge into, it honors the fact that students come to the classroom with a myriad of responsibilities. Esssentially, this standard calls for teachers to be open to the many ways that students can read, interpret, and learn from texts. 

What seems to be the least in-line with UDL/CRT is Common Core, which seems to be more reliant on a traditional classroom setting that teaches the literature of dead white guys (evident by their emphasis on reading Shakespeare and American playwrights). But since teachers must enter a balance act of considering how they can operate with the strictures of Common Core, they can rely on standards such as CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.11-12.5, which dictates "Analyze how an author's choices concerning how to structure specific parts of a text (e.g., the choice of where to begin or end a story, the choice to provide a comedic or tragic resolution) contribute to its overall structure and meaning as well as its aesthetic impact" (CCSS). This can grant teachers the license to enable students to do critical analysis of texts that can enable them to pick out elements that they find offensive, artistic, or any reaction that the student feels. This can be paired with standard CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.11-12.1, which has students "Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text, including determining where the text leaves matters uncertain" (CCSS). This can further enable teachers to empower their students to think of the implications of a given text. Moreover, it can grant teachers the ability to figure out how to help students learn to analyze and interpret text through a UDL approach because, while CCSS seems to be traditionally-based, there is no one model by which students learn. 

I've always felt conflicted about the role of standards. I understand that there needs to be some benchmark to hold teachers to so that they can do their job, but I believe teaching is also an art, and standards may impose on artistic freedom. However, if we as educators can implement a UDL/CRT pedagogical approach, we can choose to read, criticize, and implement standards into our lessons, we can make a rhetorical choice of which standards to apply/interpret, and thus effectively make the standards work for us, rather than us conforming to the standards. I think, above all, it is important to teach from a social justice-oriented pedagogy, which UDL and CRT allow for. If this occasionally goes against the conventional grains of whatever standards we must follow in our future school district, then so be it.